“So what if abortion ends life?”

1310231094-prochoice-abortion-protest--london_749645

Yesterday, in writing about the 40-year anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision I wondered if debating the cost to society of unwanted pregnancies and children wasn’t a slippery slope toward devaluing human life. After all, if a mere calculation of cost to society is all that’s needed to justify a death sentence, then why aren’t we executing homeless people?

As evidence that concern over this slippery slope is justified, I wanted to point out this article published today at Salon by staff writer Mary Elizabeth Williams asking “So what if abortion ends life?”

Of all the diabolically clever moves the anti-choice lobby has ever pulled, surely one of the greatest has been its consistent co-opting of the word “life.” Life! Who wants to argue with that? Who wants be on the side of … not-life? That’s why the language of those who support abortion has for so long been carefully couched in other terms. While opponents of abortion eagerly describe themselves as “pro-life,” the rest of have had to scramble around with not nearly as big-ticket words like “choice” and “reproductive freedom.” The “life” conversation is often too a thorny one to even broach. Yet I know that throughout my own pregnancies, I never wavered for a moment in the belief that I was carrying a human life inside of me. I believe that’s what a fetus is: a human life. And that doesn’t make me one iota less solidly pro-choice. …

Here’s the complicated reality in which we live: All life is not equal. That’s a difficult thing for liberals like me to talk about, lest we wind up looking like death-panel-loving, kill-your-grandma-and-your-precious-baby storm troopers. Yet a fetus can be a human life without having the same rights as the woman in whose body it resides. She’s the boss. Her life and what is right for her circumstances and her health should automatically trump the rights of the non-autonomous entity inside of her. Always.

What Williams is arguing is that the value of life is not inherent, but rather relative to other things. Such as the opinion of the mother in the instance of pregnancy. That there is no small amount of evil that can justified with such thinking apparently escapes Williams.

Nazis felt it was moral to execute Jews because a Jewish life wasn’t equal to a non-Jewish life.

Southern plantation owners felt slavery was moral because a black’s life wasn’t equal to a white’s life.

If life begins on conception, which Williams says she believes it does (and which, besides, is incontrovertible scientific fact) then why should that life be valued less simply because the mother doesn’t want the child? Or because the child is in the womb?

Here’s a hypothetical: What if we one day produce the technology and knowledge necessary to take a child out of the womb immediately after conception and allow it to gestate entirely outside of the mother’s body? Will we still allow that child to be terminated because the mother doesn’t want to raise it? Or because the child might, in the estimation of some, be a burden to society? Or will that child’s life suddenly be worth more because, thanks to technology, it can survive outside the womb?

I don’t think these are questions our friends in the pro-abortion movement have good answers for.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • ‘Tom Crawford

    Scary part is when you get to a mind set that values the life depending on what it can do, or its station in life, or how important it is.

    The abortion side not-withstanding, what if we start applying this standard of thought to all medical care? What if we begin to ration healthcare, or who gets a transplant.

    What if your a smoker, but need a new kidney – you are not allowed on the list to get one because you smoke.

    What if you are a factory worker, but will not be allowed to get a surgery / transplant because someone like a CEO needs it instead?

    What if your and older person and need a hip replacement – you don’t rank as high as someone younger who may still benefit society more than the older person…?

    I believe when we start defining rights of a person dependent on where they are in life, that indeed becomes a slippery slope that can be applied elsewhere.

    • $8194357

      From the womb to the tomb leftist social engineering agendas..

  • Wonderment

    Rob, what alternative to abortion are you proposing? Its estimated that over 50 million pregnancies have been ended by abortion since Roe. V. Wade. Assuming those 50 million children had been born with parents who didn’t want them or didn’t have the resources to provide for them, who would? You rail on entitlements as it is. Where would we get the resources to support another 50 million people? Whats your alternative to abortion?

    • RandyBoBandy

      There are plenty of loving couples that are unable to have children, for whatever reasons, that would have loved to adopt some of those 50,000,000 aborted children you speak of.

      • Wonderment

        Unless there are 50 million couples (100 million people, 1/3 of the US pop.) this doesnt solve the problem…

        • opinion8ed

          I have the answer. If the taxpayers are going to be on the hook, then let those paying the bills decide. I say orphanages… Better than moms who use them as pawns and do a really bad job of educating them. Most end up as generational takers and this country simply can’t afford this anymore

        • banjo kid

          The problem came about after the devils advocate mmm? can’t remember her name as it is of no use to me but she took prayer out of schools and ripped the moral teaching to shreds . Madelin Murry O’ hare I believe was her name but her own son became a Christian, go figure ? she met a very violent death and no one knows who or what did it . Could be the devil was through with her and decided to end their relationship.

    • Neiman

      What justifies mass murder? What did that baby do to justify capital punishment, where was its legal defense, when did it seek appeals? You can argue this matter and carefully consider every nuance, but it is a human being, a helpless, innocent human being that is being murdered and when a society, people like you can justify its murder, then life has no meaning, which is the end result of evolution – we are all just animals, no soul, no rights other than to serve society’s needs.

      You cannot build anything of value on the shed blood of innocent human beings.

      • $8194357

        55 million of the nations least guilty souls calling out for justice before the Throne of a Holy and Just God….
        Liberal Americans are so useful to the devil and his agendas…

        • Neiman

          Surely their souls, their blood cries out to God for vengeance, for the most severe Divine Justice. How long can God delay? Even now we are at the precipice of the pit, America will fall and the idea gives me no pleasure. He gave us much, we were the most prosperous and powerful country in all history and we rejected Him by kicking Him out of our affairs, we have shed innocent blood ever since and I cannot imagine God delaying His Justice much longer and I pity the children left behind when His Judgment falls on all flesh.

          • $8194357

            Yes sir..
            Rightous Wrath will come with Christ….

          • Neiman

            See my new post where it looks like Obama may be the Pastor of a New One-World Religion. Prophecy being fulfilled? Who knows, but this is fascinating.

      • Davo

        Fetuses have no interest in living. By aborting them, you have not done a wrong, as you have not prevented any interests from being satisfied.

        By way of comparison, cows DO have an interest in avoiding pain. When you eat a hamburger, you are preventing them from satisfying that interest.

    • Game

      Those 50 million abortions were provided over 40 years. If they had not been performed, we would have millions of more people in our work force, people who would be producing untold amounts of products and services that would better help support the social welfare programs.

      I think the value and potential of the millions of aborted babies is a much larger burden on society than the economic burden they would have placed on their parents.

      • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

        I think the value and potential of the millions of aborted babies is a much larger burden on society than the economic burden they would have placed on their parents.

        Well said.

        • Wonderment

          So, we’re supposed to assume all those 50 million will be contributors, not burdens on society? In other words Rob, you dont have a solution. You want them to be aborted and you dont want the entitlements to take care of them. Guess what, you can’t have your cake and eat it to!

          • wonderment

            Correction: DONT want them to be aborted.

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            So, we’re supposed to assume all those 50 million will be contributors, not burdens on society?

            We’re supposed to assume that all 50 million of them would be burdens on society?

            I think some of that 50 million would probably turn out to be drug users and lay-abouts, but certainly not all 50 million.

            What i’d like to do is allow them to live, so that they at least have a chance to contribute to society in a meaningful way, which I think most of them should. Because most human beings do, even those born into meager circumstances.

        • $8194357

          Taxpayers for illegal aliean entitlement takers.
          We aborted over 50 milion and replaced them in the culture with 50 million illegals…Changes the face of a society so to speak, no..

      • Just Sayin’

        Would suggest that if folks aren’t willing to care for the offspring they create, they shouldn’t be having sex and running the risk of having babies. Abortion as a means to disconnect from responsibility is at the heart of why so many people oppose that “solution”. Yes, I’m suggesting people abstain from sex unless they are in a committed relationship. Call me old-fashioned, it worked for me. When talking with groups of high school young men, I always make the statement that if you aren’t willing to marry the person you are having sex with and commit to the relationship and to your soon-to-be child, then it is probably best you keep the snake it its cage…

        • Just Sayin’

          Sorry, Game, meant that as a reply to Wonder’s post, not yours…

      • $8194357

        The illegal aliean replaced them and changed the culture
        significantly huh, game…Go figure…

    • jj261

      Boy, I would bet that those that are on most entitlement programs don’t want you to get the list of participants . Not much of a leap from unborns taking too much of the resources to other groups that use more than “their fair share”.

    • opinion8ed

      I will answer you, when people have a child make them fill put a financial affidavit and if they, the baby daddy, and both families cannot afford those children then give them to someone who can. 97% of children born to single moms end up in poverty, if that was cancer you would be outraged. Just because you have a million eggs in your body does not mean that you get to fertilize them at my expense. I can hardly wait to hear the excuses and why this failed social experiment is allowed to continue

      • Game

        The poverty rate for children born to single moms is 29.9%, so actually 70% of single moms live above the poverty level.

        Furthermore, I love how people always try to blame “single moms”. No baby has ever been made without a man, and sadly, because of the irresponsibility of men, single mothers are often left alone to bare the responsibly of children alone.

        Let me say this another way, just because you have millions of sperm, it does not mean that you are not responsible for what that sperm does to another person.

        Finally, children are a blessing from God. All children. They are not a “cancer” and should not be compared to it.

        • opinion8ed

          They may live above the poverty level but four of 5 get food stamps 45% are born to women who have NEVER been married. Sadly you would think that women, who demand their free birth control would not have children with men who cannot support any offspring. You are nothing more than a single mom apologist. Most have more than one child and most of those are the SAME baby daddy, so single mom is not very intelligent is she. Reading comprehension 101; I said if these statistics were for people getting cancer then we would all be doing something about it. Women should be required by law to disclose the baby daddy before they get any support from the hard working tax payers. Are the kids actually yours if someone else is footing the bills. Zip your pants, get a job and stop forcing kids to live off the dole becausevofvyour irresponsibility!

          • Game

            I would rather have 50 million more kids on “the dole” than have one more abortion.
            How many abortions do you support to keep people off food stamps?

          • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

            I think assuming that these 50 million kids would all turn out to be welfare cases and drug users is absurd.

            Most human beings, even those born into tough situations, go on to be productive members of society.

          • Game

            Of coarse you are correct. And I should have made that point as well. Heck I was born into poverty and don’t live there now. I am really glad my parents did not have to undergo a means test in order to have me.

            My lovely bride was born to a single mother who was in poverty, I am also really glad she did not undergo a means test as well.

          • banjo kid

            I think there are more than half of us that feel the same .

          • banjo kid

            They are required in most states to disclose the father of the child and they do go after them for the support and well being of the child . education would go a long way in stopping the unmarried pregnancies , to bad it is not done at home.

        • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

          Furthermore, I love how people always try to blame “single moms”. No baby has ever been made without a man, and sadly, because of the irresponsibility of men, single mothers are often left alone to bare the responsibly of children alone.

          Well said. Exactly.

    • http://profiles.google.com/williamdavidtipton wm tipton

      People that dont want kids shouldnt be getting pregnant.
      If they do because of their own decisions then they should have to give birth to the child and be charged with 1st degree murder if they willfully abort.
      Abortion is premeditated murder and should be treated as such.

  • sbark

    The pro abortion crowd always rants its about a “choice”………what is not told its about multiple choices and poor decisions made on those choices prior to the actual abortion. Its about those many choices vrs. No choice for the unborn …..
    The Left is basically removing responsibilty from society….with the govt more than happy to take over as the arbitor as society falls further into the cesspool.

    …..So many things are symptoms of Liberalism and their desire to control people from cradle to the grave

    • opinion8ed

      You are the person I have been waiting to have this conversation with! Exactly, if you are so irresponsible as not to use birth control then why should you get to make any choices about anything. There are condoms, iud’s, birth control pills, abstinence, morning after pill, sterilization, arm implants, patches, every single thing available and plenty of people willing to give it to you. You become a single mom by choice then elect Barack to be the worlds baby daddy then expect those of us who are doing well because of smart choices to fund you and those children you shoot out like a Pez dispenser and frankly we are getting sick and tired of it! Every single school principal knows that these are the children dragging down test scores, using all the resources that should be used to promote the best and the brightest. They like to tell our kids to dress down, don’t bring your luxuries to school, stop with Halloween costumes…. All because poor kid over there cannot afford those things… Well look at the parent/parents square in the face and tell them. I had my kids when I could afford them!

      • sbark

        Its a societal death spiral. Single parent familes are I beleive the stat is 400% more likely to live in poverty……..
        …..and then that begats generational govt dependency in itself……which then equates to lower self esteem, propensity to crime and of course more single parents and or abortion……
        Liberalism is the problem……..remove that cancer and most of the day to day issues that people without easy escape from responsibility would take care of on their own……logically

        ……but then its becoming apparent that is the radical lefts basic plan, it just takes time, and they are trying to hurry it up so this generation of radicals gets to go down in history as the “revolutionaries”.

  • matthew_bosch

    For central planning to exist, moral relativism must be incorporated.

    Morality tends to become relative through time. Thus the necessity of the Ten Commandments and the Constitution.

    • $8194357

      Trans humanist technocracy at the hands of sicence and those who desire to become god like…devils decieved followers..

  • RandyBoBandy

    Always ask a pro-choicer if they also support animal rights too. Usually the answer is yes. So you are alright with killing innocent humans, but will protest to keep a cow from being made into a Big-Mac? It’s sort of a confusing train of thought.

    • Opinion8ed

      Randy… This too I have noticed, these mental midgets would do anything to save a kitten, but a baby… That is not you business, just move along. Children are killed in this country every single day in heinous ways. I have 2 dogs which I like most days but if it came down to my dogs or child.. The dog is not going to make it! Animal rights activists make me sick, they have lost all sense of rational thought. Maybe these people should walk across the street and make children the most important people on this planet, because as helpless people solely dependent on others for protection, they are. Straw man argument, maybe but I have not seen one bill put out there by anyone that would make child’s life as important as a judge, lawyer, or president

      • banjo kid

        The constitution does that unfortunately it is ignored .

      • $8194357

        Indoctrination and brainwashing through liberal PC cause or group radicalism…They have become the near majority by soviet satelite
        cultural nation building just like the commie think tanks said a western
        culture could be destroyed from within..Alinsky’s radicaliztion and
        indoctrinated lemming Lenin’s useful idiots..What a combo..

    • http://profiles.google.com/williamdavidtipton wm tipton

      You can bet your rear that if we ripped a litter of kittens out of its mothers womb that these perverse pro abortion nuts would be filing lawsuits and demanding that cruelty charges be filed.
      But somehow its different when they have unborn babies skull pierced and its body cut to pieces and ripped out of its mother.

      Theyre all sick and need to be sterilized.

      • $8194357

        Yup

    • $8194357

      10X

    • Davo

      I’m a pro-choicer. I don’t support animal “rights,” but I do protest to keep a cow from being made into a Big Mac.

      Cows don’t have a “right to life;” however, they do have that universal interest in avoiding pain. The modern-day life of a cow–from factor farm to the slaughterhouse–forces the cow to undergo incredible amounts of pain. We need to respect the cow’s interest in avoiding that pain, if at all possible. Thus, yes, I protest torturing the cow just to make our food taste slightly better. (Our interest in tasty food is less significant than the cow’s interest in not being tortured.)

      No one’s interests are being ignored in a significant way in an abortion. Thus, I support it. The woman has an interest in not carrying the fetus to term; the fetus has no interests whatsoever; therefore, the abortion is fine, on utilitarian grounds.

  • Guest

    Define “life.”

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      The period of time from birth until death.

      • SR

        No, natural life is the period of time from conception to death – even by the admission of the woman who feels her “right to life” trumps the “right to life” of her child.

        How anyone could believe the child in the womb is a living human life and
        “justify” their right to kill it is beyond me. That is not even rational unless you are a murderer.

        But beyond that, “inalienable rights” are by definition of the Founders,
        and the Bible, given by God, not by government, not by men, therefore they cannot be taken away. Life is an inalienable right.

        To say it is my right to live, but also my right to kill a defenseless unborn child is to say that child does not have an “inalienable right” to life. If my
        right trumps that of the innocent then I am saying I am my own god and the god of others as I choose, and I give life or take it away at my will.

        That is the root of humanism, I am my own god, I do what I please and answer to no one, and I refuse to recognize God as existent because if I admit His existence as God the Creator, then I am accountable to Him as His creation.

        Not exactly the formula for a peaceful and civil society. If you extrapolate that rebellious attitude you get the mass murderer, humanism out of control, where hate for all life prevails, except or including my own.

        Jesus said, “the devil comes to steal, kill, and destroy, but I have come that you may have life, and that more abundantly”. Of course He was speaking of a spiritual life as well as natural life. But His actions on earth prove that He cares about our time on earth also.

        • $8194357

          Read the article I posted above…
          Transhumanism and technocracy describe man as
          his own god when science is given the reigns…
          Didn’t the snake promise that to Eve if she would but
          “follow him FORWARD”?
          Devil is in the modern day details huh..

      • http://profiles.google.com/williamdavidtipton wm tipton

        And what changes about the makeup of the child 10 seconds before birth and 10 second after?
        You claim a soul is inserted during the exit from the womb?
        If not then there is little different except that once outside the womb the lungs get fired up so the baby can do its own breathing. It is the same child before and after the birth canal trip….

      • $8194357

        Independent life?
        Real life starts at conception.

    • $8194357

      What liberals destroy…..

    • $16179444

      well if you can tell me that living things are necessary to create life but all means go on.

  • Game

    I am a pretty liberal guy, but articles like this one above make me sick to my stomach. I think my belief in equality and opportunity is what makes me a liberal, and also what makes me pro-life.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      On social issues, you and I probably aren’t that far apart. I’m pro-gay marriage. I think people ought to generally be left alone to do as they please, providing they’re not treading upon the rights of others.

      Like most libertarians, my agenda is to thoroughly leave you alone.

      So on abortion, it’s not that I want to control a woman’s body, it’s that I want to recognize a scientifically-consistent definition of life, and give all lives the same treatment whether it’s lives that are just beginning, lives that are ending or lives that hang in the balance due to some illness.

      • Davo

        “it’s that I want to recognize a scientifically-consistent definition of life, and give all lives the same treatment”

        I’m so proud to learn that you’ve decided to become a animal-rights supporting vegan.

        Just kidding! I know you didn’t actually mean anything you said in the sentence I quoted above!

  • Guest

    Since Rob’s so opposed to endings of life, we can presume he is a strict vegan.

    • http://sayanythingblog.com Rob

      Animals aren’t humans, and no I’m not a vegan. I just enjoyed a delicious steak for dinner last night.

      But I am anti-death penalty, if that’s the next point you’d like to try and make.

      • Davo

        So you’re arguing is that the value of life is *not* inherent, but rather relative to other things?

  • HG

    No value on human life + self-centered = Abortion

    Other products of the “me” culture include choosing to bring a child into a single parent home and unisex marriage. Pretending that a people can govern themselves without a respect for the natural order of things is the very definition of folly. Pretending morality and virtue are less than instrumental in the success and staying power of a good and descent society is just as foolish.

    • HG

      “decent”

    • $8194357

      Low/no value is the liberal social engineering way.

      Margret Sanger was her name..
      Radicle feminism was her ‘game’…
      For it was in the name of womens rights she swore….
      Useless eaters never more….

      From the womb to the tomb leftist social engineering
      under false cause and banner….
      Infanticde to euthanasia of the elderly…
      The leftist Obama care way…

  • SR

    Thanks Rob, for pointing out the absurdity and irrationality of such a statement! Unbelievable!

  • $8194357

    Technocracy…
    leftist global social engineering a “Brave New World Order”.

    Findings & Forecasts 01/23/2013

    Green Eco­nomics

    I have been writing for sev­eral years now that the global elite are plan­ning to imple­ment a Technocracy-oriented eco­nomic system that will turn our existing cap­i­tal­istic eco­nomic system upside-down. Why? Because it will be based on ENERGY instead of MONEY.The Trojan horse that is enabling Tech­noc­racy is “Green Energy.” You already know that green is on the lips of just about every politi­cian in the world. Obama kick-started the con­ver­sion of America’s energy grid into a “Smart Grid” that will con­trol energy con­sump­tion down to the appli­ance level in your home and busi­ness. Public money is reck­lessly thrown down a rabbit hole into green com­pa­nies like Solyndra. Europe is obsessed with green and sus­tain­able development.
    In his second inau­gu­ra­tion speech, Obama stated,

    “We will respond to the threat of cli­mate change, knowing that the failure to do so would betray our chil­dren and future gen­er­a­tions. Some may still deny the over­whelming judg­ment of sci­ence, but none can avoid the dev­as­tating impact of raging fires, and crip­pling drought, and more pow­erful storms. The path towards sus­tain­able energy sources will be long and some­times dif­fi­cult. But America cannot resist this tran­si­tion; we must lead it.”

    At the annual World Eco­nomic Forum summit meeting cur­rently taking place in Davos, Switzer­land, the first major head­line to be pro­duced is: Davos call for $14 tril­lion ‘greening’ of global economy. This is an amount larger than the entire global economy. The orga­ni­za­tion behind the pro­nounce­ment is the Green Growth Action Alliance. Who are they and who belongs to it?The Green Growth Action Alliance was com­mis­sioned at last year’s Davos meeting, and is headed by former Mex­ican pres­i­dent Felipe Calderon. Alliance global banking mem­bers include: Bank of America Mer­rill Lynch, Bar­clays Cap­ital, Deutsche Bank Group, Euro­pean Bank for Recon­struc­tion and Devel­op­ment, Euro­pean Invest­ment Bank, Grupo Financiero Banorte, HSBC, Inter-American Devel­op­ment Bank, Morgan Stanley, World Bank Group. Other industry mem­bers include: Accen­ture, Alcatel-Lucent, Applied Mate­rials, Envi­ron­mental Defense Fund, GE Energy, Infosys, McK­insey & Com­pany, Sam­sung Elec­tronics Com­pany, Siemens, World Trade Organization.
    This is a “who’s who” list of global giants. They, among other global movers and shakers, are col­lec­tively screaming for the world to turn “green”, all of it pred­i­cated on the unproven theory called Global Warming.
    Given that the sci­ence behind global warming is rid­dled with fraud­u­lent data and pre­de­ter­mined “studies” skewed by grants from these same orga­ni­za­tions, what is the real agenda behind all this hoopla?
    Tech­noc­racy.
    The doc­trine of Tech­noc­racy was first for­mal­ized in the 1930′s by M. King Hub­bard at Columbia Uni­ver­sity, who later pro­posed the “Peak Oil Theory”, or Hubbard’s Peak. It sought to bal­ance con­sump­tion with pro­duc­tion based on an energy for­mula instead of supply-and-demand eco­nomics. Money would be dis­carded for energy credits. Society would be run by enlight­ened and unelected sci­en­tists and engi­neers (gov­er­nance), replacing rep­re­sen­ta­tive gov­ern­ments. There would be no pri­vate prop­erty or ability to accu­mu­late wealth. People would be herded, man­aged and directed like cattle in a feed lot.
    Hub­bard, et al, believed that tech­nology had caused an organic change in society, which could only then be run by the tech­no­log­ical experts. They viewed politi­cians as igno­rant and even dan­gerous, unable to under­stand the tech­nology they were sup­posed to manage.

    This elite thinking has per­sisted, not only in halls of acad­emia, but in the indus­trial world where tech­nology and man­agerism already reigns. At the core of this elitist phi­los­ophy is Sci­en­tism, and I offer the fol­lowing definition.

    Sci­en­tism: An exten­sion of Pos­i­tivism based on a mix­ture of pseudo-science and empir­ical sci­ence that states that sci­ence alone, with its self-selected priest­hood of engi­neers and sci­en­tists, is the only source of truth about the nature of man, the phys­ical world and uni­versal reality. By def­i­n­i­tion it rejects the exis­tence of God and all notions of divine truth as is found in the Bible.A caveat is nec­es­sary. All sci­en­tists are not accused of Sci­en­tism. There are plenty (if not a majority) of sci­en­tists, engi­neers and tech­ni­cians who accept the notion of divine and/or absolute truth out­side of sci­ence. Unfor­tu­nately, these are looked upon as heretics by adher­ents to Sci­en­tism, and are largely ignored. For instance, 31,000 sci­en­tists signed a peti­tion that rejects the pseudo-science of global warming, but this has not deterred the Al Gores’ of the world, including Obama, from mar­keting global warming as if it were a sci­en­tific fact!

    If Tech­noc­racy is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the eco­nomic system, then its Siamese twin is Tran­shu­manism, which is the appli­ca­tion of sci­ence to the con­di­tion of man in order to achieve char­ac­ter­is­tics of immor­tality, omni­science and omnipres­ence, among others, and to pro­duce a God-like race of post-humans.Because of the vocal rise of Tran­shu­manism, you now rou­tinely hear calls that immor­tality for humans is just around the corner, as is the case with Ray Kurzweil. Per­haps you missed the Time Mag­a­zine cover from Feb­ruary 21, 2011 issue pic­tured at the left.
    Do you think this is all benev­o­lent and benign? Think again. The reli­gious evil that runs below the sur­face of any­thing con­nected to Sci­en­tism is of the greatest mag­ni­tude. It’s a dan­gerous phi­los­ophy for mankind in gen­eral, and espe­cially to Bible-believing Chris­tians in par­tic­ular, because its adher­ents see them­selves as gods, far above mere mor­tals of the une­d­u­cated classes.

    For instance, a leading tran­shuman, cloning researcher and nuclear physi­cist, Dr. Richard Seed, stated point­edly in an inter­view for a doc­u­men­tary: “We are going to become Gods. Period. If you don’t like it, get off. You don’t have to con­tribute, you don’t have to par­tic­i­pate. But if you’re going to inter­fere with ME becoming God, then we’ll have big trouble; we’ll have war­fare. The only way to pre­vent me is to kill me. And you kill me, I’ll kill you.” [Dr. Richard Seed, Nuclear physi­cist and cloning researcher. Tech­no­ca­lyps, Part II — Preparing for the Sin­gu­larity]. Yes, he said that; If you don’t believe it, go listen to the entire doc­u­men­tary. [https://itunes.apple.com/us/movie/technocalyps-pt.-2-preparing/id490742472]

    Where is this leading? Sci­en­tism, Tech­noc­racy and Tran­shu­manism are headed straight into a Sci­en­tific Dic­ta­tor­ship: That is, the utopian con­cept of sci­en­tific man­agerism whereby all facets of polit­ical, social and eco­nomic life are man­aged solely by the sci­en­tific method and dic­tates of sci­ence. If unchecked, it will put mankind back into the dark ages of a feudal society where a few own every­thing and have all the priv­i­leges while the rest own nothing and have zero privileges.Fur­ther­more, all of this is coming at us like an express train. Is any­body else paying atten­tion? Appar­ently not, for I am still the only one harping on this week after week and month after month.
    You are wel­come to share this article with anyone who might want to see beyond the cha­rade of modern global pol­i­tics and sci­en­tific psycho-babble.

  • spud

    I doubt seriously that Roe v Wade will ever be overturned. I would rather hear people discussing the far better choice of educating women on the benefits of adoption. If more pols would talk about this on the national stage the worm might turn on un-wanted pregnancies ending in abortion. Scalia and Kennedy will both be 80 years old at 2016 election. If dem wins by 2020 they would be 84. They very likely won’t be around that long and the dems will pack the court for years. You need to change the way the debate is being shaped and adoption end game sure looks more like a winner than trying to over turn Roe v Wade ever be.

  • nathanp8

    Great post, Rob. Much of the evil in this world comes from the devaluation of human life. It is no large step from abortion to euthanizing unwanted newborns. From there what’s to stop us from killing the physically or mentally handicapped? How about the mentally ill? How about if someone disagrees with the government? Abortion, I’m afraid, may be the beginning of the end of a civil society.

    • $8194357

      From the womb to the tomb social engeneering a brave new left utopia..

  • http://genelalor.com Gene Lalor

    The Right to Life–40 Years Later

    The annual demonstration in the nation’s capital endorsing the
    sanctity of human life and against the Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade split
    decision negating the sanctity of that life was postponed this year in deference
    to all the hoopla attendant on the presidential inauguration and Martin Luther
    King Day.

    Instead, the March for Life will be held on Friday, January 25th 2013
    beginning at 11:30 am with “Meet Students for Life” at the SW corner of 7th and
    Madison Drive, followed by the “Rally at National Mall” near the Smithsonian
    Castle west of 8th Street, noon to 1:30 pm, and culminating with the “March to
    Supreme Court” at 1:30 pm.

    At the conclusion of those events, “Silent No More Awareness Campaign
    Testimonies” will take place immediately after on the steps of the Supreme
    Court, the “Women Speak for Themselves 2013 March for Life Gathering” will be
    held 2:30 pm to 4:30 pm at the Heritage Foundation, Allison Auditorium Foyer,
    7th floor 214 Massachusetts Ave NE, and the “Advocates for Life Reception”
    featuring Hadley Arkes will partially coincide at the Americans United for Life
    Offices, 655 15th Street NW, Suite 410, 4:00-6:00 pm.

    I mention those specific times and locations in part to encourage
    those who support the constitutionally-guaranteed, SCOTUS-revoked, right to life
    of all Americans to join in.

    Primarily, though, I feel it’s incumbent on me as a moral and civic
    duty to provide information, times, and addresses to the mainstream media. The
    MSM tend to publicize inconsequential, mini-left wing demonstrations by tens of
    dozens of dissidents yet ignore the hundreds of thousands who show up every year
    in D.C. to reflect on the aborted right to life of the approximately 55,772,015
    pre-born Americans who have been killed since 1973 in the hope that they can
    save the lives of millions more who may be killed in the future.

    Assuming we as a nation still have a soul, a glimmer of hope that the
    MSM and Americans will wake up and realize the scope of the horrific infant
    genocide in progress in our country came from an unlikely source, the
    HuffingtonPost.com, more specifically from HuffPo’s “TED Talk.”

    “TED,” (an acronym for Technology, Entertainment, Design), seems to
    have gone off Ariana Hufington’s unpaid reservation with a video that proves
    beyond any rational doubt that those millions of pre-borns abortionists have
    murdered were not mere globs of tissue, not just useless “products of
    conception,” but living, sentient human beings.

    Only a fool or, redundantly, a liberal would believe reality could
    sway abortion-obsessed libs from standing by their sick belief that killing
    innocent pre-borns is right, just, or humane. Only a liberal could sleep with
    the guilt of being responsible for the deaths of so many innocent human beings
    without waking up with horrific night terrors caused by what they have done.
    Still, hope springs eternal.

    In 2011, Associate Professor of Medicine at Yale University Alexander
    Tsiaris posted a video presentation on “TED Talks” covering what he aptly titled
    “The Development of a Fetus from Conception to Birth.” . . .

    (Read more at http://www.genelalor.com/blog1/?p=29743.)

  • banjo kid

    Control of ones body MMM? a good place to start would be keep your pants on. Prevention is the ultimate control. I wish they would control their bodies that way they would not have to commit murder so they won’t be punished with a child . Obama said he has been punished with two and that is to many . He might see where he is wrong if something happens to one of his own. If a woman or a man makes the decision to have sex knowing they have a good chance of producing a baby I would call it premeditated murder if they before hand have made the decision to have an abortion later . The judges and the law makers will have to stand before the ultimate judge one day , I wonder what excuse they will present to God?

    • $8194357

      Yes sir.

  • Davo

    “Nazis felt it was moral to execute Jews because a Jewish life wasn’t equal to a non-Jewish life.

    Southern plantation owners felt slavery was moral because a black’s life wasn’t equal to a white’s life.”

    And Republicans feel it’s OK to kill cows because cattle life is not equal to human life.

    It sounds like you agree with the author of the pro-choice piece. If life truly begins at conception (which is an incontrovertible scientific fact), why should we be allowed to end it just to satisfy our taste buds?

  • Davo

    “What Williams is arguing is that the value of life is not inherent, but rather relative to other things.”

    You–and every other “pro-life” meat-eater–make THAT EXACT SAME ARGUMENT to justify killing cows to make steak. You argue that the value of LIFE is *NOT* inherent–rather, the value of the life of a cow is relative to the value of the life of a human.

Top